Re: Collation versioning

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Collation versioning
Date: 2019-11-08 02:04:18
Message-ID: CA+hUKGKa_ZKbWVLwH_O0MvLQMHRjTpHOR-9Y_7XCm-OpXLVkcQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 2:37 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 02:23:54PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Right, so this is basically a policy decision: do we assume that all
> > pre-13 indexes that depend on collations are potentially corrupted, or
> > assume that they are not? The "correct" thing to do would be to
> > assume they are potentially corrupted and complain until the user
> > reindexes, but I think the pragmatic thing to do would be to assume
> > that they're not and just let them adopt the current versions, even
> > though it's a lie. I lean towards the pragmatic choice; we're trying
> > to catch future problems, not give the entire user base a load of
> > extra work to do on their next pg_upgrade for mostly theoretical
> > reasons. (That said, given the new glibc versioning, we'll
> > effectively be giving most of our user base a load of extra work to do
> > on their next OS upgrade and that'll be a characteristic of PostgreSQL
> > going forward, once the versioning-for-default-provider patch goes
> > in.) Any other opinions?
>
> Matching an incorrect collation version on an index which physically
> uses something else does not strike me as a good idea to me because
> you may hide corruptions, and you would actually lose the reason why
> the corruption happened (did the version bump up from an incorrect
> one? Or what?). Could it be possible to mark any existing indexes
> with an unknown version or something like that? This way, we could
> just let the user decide what needs to be reindexed or not, and we
> need to offer an option to update the collation version from unknown
> to the latest one available.

Fair point.

So we have three proposals:

1. Assume that pre-13 indexes that depend on collations are
potentially corrupted and complain until they are reindexed. This
could be done by having pg_upgrade run ALTER INDEX ... DEPENDS ON
COLLATION "fr_FR" VERSION '' (empty string, or some other default
value that we don't think is going to coincide with a real version).
2. Assume that pre-13 indexes are not corrupted. In the target 13
database, the index will be created in the catalogs with the
provider's current version.
3. We don't know if pre-13 indexes are corrupted or not, and we'll
record that with a special value just as in proposal #1, except that
we could show a different hint for that special version value. It
would tell you can you can either REINDEX, or run ALTER INDEX ...
DEPENDS ON COLLATION "fr_FR" VERSION '34.0' if you believe the index
to have been created with the current collation version on an older
release of PostgreSQL that didn't track versions.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2019-11-08 02:36:50 Re: define bool in pgtypeslib_extern.h
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-08 01:36:54 Re: Collation versioning